There is lots I don't know about guns or gun-legislation or gun control. All I know of is the awful impact gun violence has on people, and obviously I don't even know that in an intimate visceral way.

I watched parts of CNN town hall last week. One part that struck with me with me was Rubio saying that to re-enact the now-expired 1994 assault weapons ban would only ban some 300ish of 3000ish assault-like weapons. Because there is a great difficulty with defining weapons, and that they can be easily modified to get around those. I read a CNN article that went a little into this. While I understand definitions needs to be used for laws I thought there has to be a better way of going around this, instead of having laws where there are loop holes where simple detail changes or name changes will make a gun legal but not change its lethality.

Would it be easier to define if a gun is legal or not by the results / effects of the weapon?
Now, again, I don't know enough about guns to properly parse them out, but a few things I heard about how/why certain guns are more lethal than others are things like1) How quickly in succession bullets can leave the gun. (mainly due to the fact more bullets are flying).
Such a rule impacting this would presumably affect selective fire, semi-automatics, fully automatics, and large magazines.2) How fast a bullet leaving the gun is traveling apparently is more lethal. Per The Atlantic.3) The ammo composition, size, or shape. Armour piercing being an obvious one.

Could rules not be made to address those, instead of specific gun models? That guns which shoot out bullets in quick succession, at high speeds, and/or with crazy ammo/magazines, are, if not banned, then more strictly regulated than guns without those parameters? And if we want or need to create certain cut outs (example: big ammo for wildlife control for certain professions and/or locations) then do so.

I don't think that looking at what weapons are available of course is the only thing to look at. Universal background checks and mental health both need to be looked at more closely. In Florida non-hand-guns can be purchased at 18, and hand-guns at 21. It has been suggested to raise the age so that it is 21 for all guns. I have wondered the wisdom of letting 18 year olds access to weapons, for 2 reasons. 1) They haven't had a chance to tarnish up their adult criminal record which might disallow them from owning a gun (I assume a juvenile criminal record does not show up on NICS). 2) Most mental health issues develop between ages 14-24 (though that doesn't mean they come to a professional's attention then). It would seem to be if we want to keep a juvenile criminal record out of NICS that it is only fair to give them a couple years to mess up their life *and* want to have stricter mental health evaluation of young adults purchasing guns. Of course if someone is not old enough to purchase guns… there should be some common-sense exceptions. Professional. On a licensed gun-range. Hunting game with a person with a valid gun license.

Edited by sierraleone, 26 February 2018 - 10:55 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

^ There are some guns that don't require bullets. Stun/taser guns, spear/harpoon guns. But I digress

I've hear that idea too, just more closely regulate ammo, and let them have whatever gun they want.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

I agree with the bullet thing, but I think the craziest thing of all is how invested the gun-rights people are in preventing research and accurate statistical analysis of gun ownership, so I'd start there.

Get rid of the Dickey Amendment. Get a national registry of gun owners to allow for easier spotting of trends by law enforcement. If they can track how much cold medicine I buy because I might be a drug dealer, they can track how much ammo someone buys who might be a wannabe mass murderer.

There was an episode of the podcast 99% Invisible recently where the "official" topic was about car crashes and car safety. For every fatal car crash in the U.S., there is information gathered about those involved, conditions at the time, causes of the crash, and other details. This is put into a federal database that is then used by researchers who can spot trends and make recommendations - either for improvements in infrastructure or additional car safety features. The automobile industry was originally violently opposed to the the database, because heaven forbid someone should document black-and-white evidence of the ways that their product can kill people and suggest maybe they could do things to keep people safer... but the database got made anyway, and it's proven its worth. Surprise, surprise... no such database exists for fatalities related to gun violence.

- Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me. (Matthew 25:40)

- Do not let kindness and truth leave you; Bind them around your neck, Write them on the tablet of your heart. (Proverbs 3:3)

I think the nothing we've been doing after all these mass shootings hasn't worked so we need to do something. Part of that is dealing with gun control. I found this article that talks about the assault weapons ban:

In her appearance, Loesch repeatedly danced around Stephanopoulos’s point that, during the U.S.’s decade-long ban on assault weapons, both incidents and deaths due to the weapons dropped dramatically. As Stephanopoulos pointed out, research from the University of Massachusetts’ Louis Klarevas found that, from 1994-2004, there were only 12 incidents – about one per year – due to assault weapons, totaling some 89 deaths.

In the decade following, however, both numbers spiked. From 2004-2014, there were 34 incidents involving assault weapons – and over 300 deaths.

The ban worked. Not perfectly but nothing does. We still outlaw drinking and driving even though people still drink and drive. The number of incidents went down, as did the number of deaths. Obviously, banning some weapons worked. I'm not saying we should ban all guns but why does anybody need an assault weapon designed for war? I get that there are collectors out there but these guns aren't being bought as collectable items. They are being put to use.

What really needs to happen is that the hold the NRA has on American politics and government needs to be broken. No truly lasting results will happen while the NRA sticks its collective head in the sand and says that these mass shootings would happen with or without gun control. I'm hoping that there has been a slight shift away from the NRA after this latest school shooting.

As someone employed as a sub and hoping to get a full time job teaching in the fall I think arming teachers is a bad idea. Even with training some people are just not going to be good with guns. Then there's the chance that a student could get their hands on a gun owned by a teacher, even if it is locked up. Then there's the fact that there was a cop armed with a gun at the Parkland shooting and that didn't stop 17 people from being killed.

We need to stop accepting the tired old refrain that conservatives and the NRA trot out after every mass shooting that gun control isn't the answer. It may not be the entire answer, but it is a crucial component.

"You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."
--Jor-El

It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job: it's a depression when you lose yours.
-- Harry S. Truman

There's also another reason to ban assault weapons--prosecution. It makes prosecution easier in the long run with a law on the books. [which btw is why the NRA doesn't want the bans. They are afraid of the legal liability if assault weapons find their way into the hands of criminals when sale and possession is illegal.]

Now, we cannot prosecute anyone who owns or possesses an assault weapon because it is legal. We have to wait for them to do something illegal. Gun manufacturers are not held liable because the sale is legal, so, no class actions suits.

Additionally, with a weapons ban, police could arrest when they encounter anyone with the weapon. No, we can't hunt down every owner, but we can arrest when people are in possession. You have no idea what a difference it makes when you can actually go to jail just for possessing. Much the same way California deals with people who get tickets and don't come to court or pay fines. No one hunts them down, but if they are detained for any reason, those warrants are added to the charges. It's not perfect, but it works much better than anyone realizes. Either offenders are caught right away, or they are so careful not to break the law that it doesn't matter to me as a citizen.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

^ Good points. I read a comment on-line yesterday about someone who was moving and held a yard sale. She claimed she had some teens that regularly work at yardsales helping her, and she saw some lone guys approach the teens, ask a question, and then leave right after empty handed. She asked them what that was all about, and says they told her they were asking about firearms (I think it was specifically unregistered firearms), and this is a regular occurrence at yard sales in their experience….

News today: Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods are both deciding to stop selling assault-style rifles and require gun buyers to be 21 to purchase other guns.

Is that legal? Obviously they can decide they are not selling something. But the latter part, restricting what are otherwise legal purchases based on a customer's age. Because that is technically what they are doing. I mean, I know we are having this debating in SCOTUS over selling wedding cakes to gay people are the moment But how good would a 18-20 year old's case be if they took Wal Mart or Dick's Sporting Goods to court over their decision to sell something, just not to them? When they are of legal age to purchase it?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

You've got to get rid of the gun shows. The LA Times ran a story a week or two back about vital components ( upper and lower receivers) of AR-15s are being built by adept backyard and garage gun enthusiasts without serial numbers that mainstream gun manufacturers do, rendering them unidentifiable. These are being sold at some of these gun shows. And just wait till 3-D printer technology perfects material durability/reliability issues to cheaply crank out AR-15 components. All bets off then. Most dealers at the gun shows have proper FTL certification but private owner to owner sales and transfers are open to shady, unregulated practices.

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

If they can now regulate how many painkillers you can get with a prescription, they ought to be able to regulate how much ammunition can be bought within a time period.

And yes, we need to change the culture. Other countries watch our tv shows, movies and video games without the same results, but they do present the violence as the norm in this country. Heck, NCIS LA opened Sunday with 7 minutes of a gun battle without any set up. All of the NCIS shows are filled with gun violence. Thought the "IS" in the title meant Investigative Service. When do they ever investigate anything? (OK, they do investigate, but lets get at least 3 gun battles on screen in between!) Arrow has been so violent this season I think I'll give up on it. Maybe the culture of violence is a remnant of this country basically being settled with firearms, from muskets to rifles to hand guns in the Wild West. ???